The language used in the House of Commons last night is probably unprecedented. Drawing the name of a murdered MP into the fight was, at the very least, questionable. To describe the contribution of female MPs, pleading with the PM to moderate his language in the light of violence and death threats, as ‘humbug’ is appalling.
I am the bishop of a diocese in which Jo Cox is remembered with massive affection and in which there is great sensitivity to utilisation of her for political purposes. Her family are not just names to be traded.
Words are not neutral – they can become weapons. Words in the mouth of leaders can shape the language and behaviour of all sorts of people, and not always positively. The challenge of leadership is to lead, to behave like the adult in the room, to see the big picture, to hold the long-term perspective, and not to lose sight of the key issue.
The Prime Minister has a particular and weighty responsibility in our current crisis to lead by example. A fundamental element of strong leadership, rooted in character, is to demonstrate humility. The language he is using is destructive and has caused distress. An apology would be in order. More importantly, he needs to lead a recalibration of language, mood and relationship. What we are witnessing currently is the further corruption of our public discourse and the norms of democratic debate.
A colleague said to me this morning that we are in urgent need of recovering the three Rs: respect, responsibility and restraint. Respect for people (opponents as well as friends), the law and language; taking responsibility for our own language and behaviour as well as the common good; restraint even when provoked.
It is incumbent on those who lead to tell the truth, use language wisely (with a view to consequences) and behave with responsibility and respect.
September 26, 2019 at 10:48 am
[…] The language used in the House of Commons last night is probably unprecedented. Drawing the name of a murdered MP into the fight was, at the very least, questionable. To describe the contribution of female MPs, pleading with the PM to moderate his language in the light of violence and death threats, as ‘humbug’ is… — Read on nickbaines.wordpress.com/2019/09/26/language-and-leadership/ […]
September 26, 2019 at 12:09 pm
The influence of the church’s spokesmen in the national debate is even more critical at a time when Parliament is presided over by an egomaniac, for whom the norms of decency and public service are alien. He seems incapable of answering any question or charge coherently and while, as a journalist, his writing may have reached some level of articulacy, his current performances seem to lack even that; mumbling and misinterpreting questions.while patronising his questioners. Last night’s performance must have proved to any rational listener, of his inability to hold the role of PM and also question his hold on reality.
September 26, 2019 at 12:15 pm
You are just fanning the flames of strife. It wasn’t Boris Johnson who inked the name of Jo Cox, but a hysterical Labour MP. The response was just “let’s get on with delivering Brexit”. Typical of the clergy!
September 26, 2019 at 12:22 pm
I’ve never read such rubbish. Plain speaking never hurt anyone!
September 26, 2019 at 12:22 pm
You make no mention that in fact Labour started using Jo Cox’s name, and in fact I did not find the language used was offensive in anyway. Might have been a bit blustery, but that is understandable considering the behaviour of MP’s is becoming the norm. Currently there is no point to Parliament as they cannot agree to anything, so if the PM has to goad the opposition to call an election, so be it.
September 26, 2019 at 12:28 pm
As I understand it, it was not the Prime Minister who ‘drew Jo Cox’s name into’ proceedings, it was a Labour MP to whom he then responded.
Members of Parliament have a responsibility to be careful in their use of language. That includes factual accuracy when making allegations.
September 26, 2019 at 12:29 pm
On the contrary, this is not unprecedented at all. I refer you to Guido Fawkes’ excellent summary of incendiary comments by John McDonnell MP, including suggesting the Labour Party should assassinate Lady Thatcher, and that Esther McVey should be lynched, a comment made while his colleague Angela Rayner laughed along beside him.
Before Labour MPs begin attacking the PM for his ‘humbug’ comments perhaps they should stop to consider the potential for accusations of hypocrisy engendered by this evil Marxist.
I do not seek to support the PM’s use of language, merely to point out a) that he has far from a monopoly on so called ‘hare speech’, and that the loudest, most aggressive responders in the House were Jess Phillips and Paula Sherriff, both Labour MPs.
September 26, 2019 at 12:33 pm
Ca you tell me who drew Jo Cox’s name into the ‘fight’ (and that’s quite inflammatory language in in itself), Bishop? Do you know who it was?
September 26, 2019 at 12:35 pm
Bishop, I agree with much of what you say, but I listened to the entire session, and I think you give the impression that the PM was the main “protagonist”. In fact for the most part he responded calmly and with good humour to some very, very angry questions and abuse. Its a shame also that you didn’t mention that it was a Labour MP brought Jo’s name into the debate.
September 26, 2019 at 12:53 pm
I agree….Jo Cox’s name should *never* have been mentioned last night. I believe it was the labour MP Paula Sherriff who first mentioned her name??…..to score some very cheap political points [in my opinion]. Absolutely disgusting. She needs to mind her language.
September 26, 2019 at 1:06 pm
Reply to a number of comments: I didn’t say the PM was the first to mention her – read what I said. Secondly, the PM has a particular responsibility as PM. This is supposed to be a parliament, not a primary school playground in which we play “he said it first” games.
September 26, 2019 at 1:13 pm
…….so your allowed to point the finger at the PM, but we are not allowed to point out the falsehood of that position. So be it. I won’t be commenting further. You ought to be ashamed. And FYI, I did read what you said.
September 26, 2019 at 1:15 pm
It was a Labour MP who leveraged Cox’s murder – not Johnson. Furthermore a Labour MP who appeared almost out of control with her incoherent rage. Johnson’s response was pretty mild, actually, especially when you factor in the fact that he must have been dog-tired by then. And there was nothing wrong with the term “Surrender Act”. It was a political statement which – wrongly or rightly – he believes to be true and is nothing compared to calling people Nazis, fascists, dictators, or waving around an effigy of Johnson’s decapitated head at an awards ceremony.
If you have a look around on social media you will find many examples of where the left – in particular – have resorted to inflammatory and violent language. I carry no torch for Johnson but there have been a number of recent, very vitriolic attacks on him which often, under closer examination, prove to be on shaky ground. This WILL backfire – people will see it as bullying and his popularity will increase.
Christians are often accused of double-standards but the Anglican clergy’s determination to weigh so often on behalf of the left is now starting to look egregious; it will prove deeply damaging to the church’s message.
September 26, 2019 at 1:23 pm
I have just seen your reply above my “awaiting moderation” comment.
Yes, Johnson does have a particular responsibility as PM. However to suggest he cannot describe humbug as “humbug” is absurd. If you feel that this is too strong, then on-line media has multiple examples of where Sherriff herself has used much more inflammatory language than “Surrender Act”.
PS I would like to add that I appreciate your apparent willingness to publish criticism. Some of your fellow bishops with similar political views appear far too thin-skinned and insecure about their positions, in that they (for example) twitter-block anyone who dares to disagree.
September 26, 2019 at 2:04 pm
Dear Bishop, please focus on your pulpit and the Godly call to the ministry. Don’t try to be a headmaster for politicians.
No point dragging the Church into what is already a messy affair, the Church should not be labelled as part of the ‘establishment’.
Thank you and God bless you.
September 26, 2019 at 3:20 pm
I read it clearly the first time, and no you didn’t, but in the ambiguity of your statment it would be easy to draw that conclusion. I agree with your “three Rs” and that the PM has a unique responsibility, but your article conveys a clear (at least to me) anti-PM slant, when in fact he responded pretty calmly to a tirade of abuse unworthy of any MP.
September 26, 2019 at 5:33 pm
[…] The Bishop of Leeds, Nick Baines published this comment on the proceedings in the House of Commons yesterday: Language and leadership […]
September 26, 2019 at 9:20 pm
Reblogged this on hungarywolf.
September 26, 2019 at 10:00 pm
Reply to a confused Bishop: Please re-read DS (no 9) post: he sums up very well exactly what happened in the HoC.The PM’s response was neither aggressive nor histrionic unlike the rabid ravings from the opposition benches who are having difficulty in coming to terms with someone who is more than equal to their anti-democratic maneuverings. Do the right thing Bishop and make a plea to the HoC to honour the democratic decision of the British public. Please.
September 27, 2019 at 7:51 am
[…] in the Commons, more robust observations have been made by Nick Bains, Bishop of Leeds, in his blog Language and leadership, and the interventions in yesterday’s debate in the House of Lords, of the Archbishop of […]
September 27, 2019 at 11:08 am
Thank you, Nick for having the courage to write this. Totally agree with what you have written. Good to see a Bishop leading on this very important issue.
September 27, 2019 at 12:47 pm
The Bishops say the result of the referendum should be honoured. But what is the result?
17 million (48%) voted to Remain (for whatever reason); 13 million did not vote (for whatever reason); 19 million did not have a vote; possibly a million were denied a vote – and the result – division and chaos greater than at any time for 350 years.
It is hardly reasonable to claim that Brexit is ‘the will of the people’, so why are they doing it (these billionaires and millionaires that own The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times, The Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Daily Telegrah or are Brexit Party MEP’s)?
September 27, 2019 at 12:49 pm
Above comment should read:
17 million (48%) voted to Remain
September 27, 2019 at 12:53 pm
sorry my copy and paste is not working properly, should say 17 million voted to Leave (52%) (for whatever reason); 16 million voted to Remain (48%) (for whatever reason) – oh the problem must be the greater than less than symbols in wordpress!
September 29, 2019 at 9:01 am
[…] in the Commons; more robust observations were made by Nick Bains, Bishop of Leeds, in his blog Language and leadership, and in the interventions in Thursday’s debate in the House of Lords by the Archbishop of […]
September 29, 2019 at 7:45 pm
Thank you for your comments, Nick Bains.
September 29, 2019 at 7:46 pm
Thank you for your comments, Nick Baines.
October 4, 2019 at 2:26 pm
Reblogged this on The Church of England in Parliament.
October 26, 2021 at 6:02 pm
[…] The Bishop of Leeds, Nick Baines, said in his blog: […]